Thus Sayeth "The Science"

When did science become “the science”?

With the climate change debate going on at the moment, it seems that I read or hear the term “the science” not just every day, but many times per day. Sure, discussing climate change importantly involves discussing various scientific explorations and discoveries, but when did it become “the science”?

I think the idea behind “the science” is to give scientific exploration and discovery a new kind of status – dubious though it may be... In the pre-modern era, the people used to say, “thus sayeth the Lord”, but in the modern era (some would say “post-modern” era), apparently we are now supposed to say “thus sayeth the science”. There are a few problems with this...

The first thing, in relation to climate change science specifically, is that climate change science is not a “the” in the sense that it is not one science, but a combination of many different kinds of sciences (EG - biology, botany, meteorology, marine, environmental, pollution production science etc...). Climate change science is a “young” science, in that it is an amalgamation of a number of scientific traditions and practices, still finding its way. Another problem with “the” in relation to science is that there is no common consensus on what the various studies on climate change is telling us. There is not a strong sense of “the” in how scientists interpret data on climate change, and in fact, scientists are being accused of being parts of factions or sides in the debate, rather than allowing their results to guide their thinking on the matter. This seems to be an area of great concern, given that the objectivity of science is supposed to be its prime strength. The recent “Climategate” scandal has provided some evidence that these camps exist and there is pressure on the scientific community to demonstrate results that prove one way or the other way, rather than to allow the data to speak for itself. It seems that scientists are human after all, like the rest of us, and that science is not the totally rational, values-free domain many had put their hope in.

I wonder if “the science” is really about science’s last gasp at credibility as we continue to move out of the modern era and into the post-modern era. The modern era was supposed to be about science, technology and rationalism saving the world from all of its sins and problems. Instead, what we have seen is new technology and science bringing with it, new problems and sins to deal with. It is the same old story, told in new ways...

Science is great and has contributed a lot of good to many in the world. But the real issues in the world – like climate change, global poverty, war, first world health and mental health, global financial crises etc – will not ultimately be solved by “the science”. These issues need an approach that considers the human condition, not just "the science" involved. The kind of good will that will solve these kinds of problems are found in the teachings of all the Bible and of Jesus – care for neighbours, care for strangers, care for "the least", generosity, hospitality, the common purse, the common good etc etc...

Maybe it is time to go back to “thus sayeth the Lord” and rediscover what it might mean in this post-modern time...?

Shalom...

Jesus Asked...

When I go home from work on the train, I get a free "newspaper" (and I use the term loosely) called MX. In it, the other day, was an article called, "It's Surreal, But That Makes Sense". It "borrowed" this story from an article in "The Daily Telegraph" from the UK.

The story is about an American researcher, Travis Proulx, who has made an interesting observation through his research, that people actually learn better if they are presented with less straight forward, more surreal learning experiences, rather than clear, well organised information and facts. While this seems to fly in the face of common sense, it is not really a new discovery. In fact, Jesus, who is widely regarded as one the greatest teachers of all time, used this learning technique more than any other.

I have already highlighted this to a certain extent in a previous post, "Jesus is the Question". More than preaching sermons or arguing apologetics, Jesus actually told riddles and parables; asked people probing and personal questions; and rarely gave a straight answer to questions that were asked of him. On the surface, not much a teacher, but this latest research might suggest otherwise...

People often think that the reason Jesus told parables was to make the things of God clearer to his listeners. But when asked about why he told parables, he replied that the parables would only give insight to those who are seeking out the truth of God in their lives. For Jesus, this was the key to getting anything at all out of his difficult and surreal teaching methods. These people would listen to his parables and then ponder on them and reflect on what they might mean for them. It was through this kind of prayerful searching, that they would unlock the mysteries behind these strange, often obtuse stories (Matthew 13:1-17).

What do the stories of Jesus do for you?

Before I go, I want to re-recommend, the "Jesus Asked" podcast series that I previously recommended in my "Jesus is the Question" post. You can either download the podcasts directly or subscribe to them via i-tunes.

Do it now !!!

Shalom...

Where Does Evolution Leave God?

Both Karen Armstrong (author of "The Case for God") and Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion") were asked to respond to this question by The Wall Street Journal. Neither new what the other would write and then both responses were published. I read them both in The Weekend Australian and thought you might be interested as well.

Click here to read the article from The Wall Street Journal. I think it is interesting to read what both authors have to say, but I think it is even more interesting that a newspaper like The Wall Street Journal asked them the question so that they could write an article on this topic for everyone to read. The whole God / not God debate is really going on out there...

I hope you read this article and gain some fodder to engaging in this discussion for yourself. And you should take a look at this as well. It is called "Duelity" and is a very creative representation of an interplay between creationism and evolutionary theory. It is pretty clever and it also makes you think. I'm not going to say anything more about it. You're just going to have to trust me that it is worth going to and having a look at it.

Shalom...

We Are All African Now

Back in May, I wrote a blog called "Genetics Reveals the Real Eden". My friend Francis found the complete article in a magazine called "Intelligent Life". It is all about a complex and sophisticated genetic study that has sought to uncover the origins of humanity. The study has uncovered, to the best of its ability, the likely location of "Eden", and the genetic version of "Adam" and "Eve". The problem here is that Adam and Eve they have discovered at this stage lived 60,000 years apart. It looks like there is still some more work to be done, as it would have been very difficult to produce a "Cain" or "Abel" with that time-lag of existence.

Anyway, fascinating stuff and well worth a read. For those of us that read the Bible and see it as a source of truth for our lives, such research and evidence challenges us about the way in which we read and interpret important Bible chapters like Genesis 1, and really, how we understand the Bible in general. It also challenges us on how we consider the range of creation stories that various indigenous groups tell as a way of understanding their / our origins.

I've attached the article here if you are interested in reading it.